The American Ruling Class

[5150]

I would say that would have to depend on the type of crime committed and then a review a judge, panel, committee,(?), etc. to try and determine if the individual will be a threat to society.

So basically you're saying that individual rights can be infringed upon for the greater good of society if determined by a panel, or a judge, or a special review. Which means you're for gun confiscation if its best for the greater good or society. Or thats what it sounds like you're saying.

Seems the argument today by many people (Not all) is that guns are not needed in our society as this is no longer the old west. That only law enforcement should really have them and even hunting is so restricted now that its best to do away with that in the name of preserving animals and wildlife.

Under current law it doesn't mater what the felony was that a person was convicted under the convicted criminal no longer has the legal right to own or possess a gun even for protection of self or against a tyrannical government. Even if you wrote hot checks or perpetrated a crime that was not violent or involved a weapon you are still no longer allowed to vote or own a gun.

Do you think someone who is being abused by LEOs or is under threat is going to give a damn about what the law says if there is a gun around?

[aljhoa]

Mundialization - Pike and Mazzini

Yet another fabrication—often repeated by anti-masons and conspiracy theorists—is the claim that Albert Pike was in correspondence with Giusseppe Mazzini. First claimed by Edith Starr Miller, the accusation was later repeated by William Guy Carr, who cited Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, author of The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled. In Pawns in the Game Carr claims that this correspondence was on display in the British Museum but didn't provide the source of his information. Later, in Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:
"The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925".

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion...We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."3
Albert Pike's correspondence with Giusseppe Mazzini : a fraud


Al

[jdodson]

@5150

Honestly taking guns away from anyone is just the first step to a nanny state government. Who are they to decide someone is not allowed to have that freedom? If someone commits a crime, have they not paid their debt to society by serving their time in prison? Is the government in the business of predicting human behavior now? Why punish those who have been truly rehabilitated due to those who have not?

Why must someone be punished for the rest of their lives?
I believe it is just an excuse to strip more Americans from their freedom.
They are already trying to do it to the rest of us who have committed no crime!

Obviously there could be exceptions, for example if someone is a repeat offender of a crime involving a gun ect...The way laws are today, its not hard to get hit with a felony.

[5150]

@5150

Honestly taking guns away from anyone is just the first step to a nanny state government. Who are they to decide someone is not allowed to have that freedom? If someone commits a crime, have they not paid their debt to society by serving their time in prison? Is the government in the business of predicting human behavior now? Why punish those who have been truly rehabilitated due to those who have not?

Why must someone be punished for the rest of their lives?
I believe it is just an excuse to strip more Americans from their freedom.
They are already trying to do it to the rest of us who have committed no crime!

Obviously there could be exceptions, for example if someone is a repeat offender of a crime involving a gun ect...The way laws are today, its not hard to get hit with a felony.

Your argument is the “slippery slope” argument where as soon as you allow any infringement then there is no stopping it until the final result is a total gun ban. The only question is how far along that scale will it go before the people stand up and revolt. Will it not be until a total gun ban is in place or when the people have already given up their guns and realize their mistake but also realize it’s too late to change things?

As for your comment is it the governments job of predicting human behavior and the question is yes. They have already legally ruled on civil commitments and the Supreme Court has ruled the government can legally detain and hold a person or people who they feel are a threat. They do this already with sex offenders as well as people listed as terrorists or enemy combatants so that legal slippery slope has already been started as well and the only question is when will you and I be next on their list or agenda?

They are using every opportunity or excuse as you described to remove as many “rights” and "freedoms" as possible so eventually they have total control and compliance.

I could go on but I'm preaching to the Choir

[Mad Scientist]

@5150

Honestly taking guns away from anyone is just the first step to a nanny state government. Who are they to decide someone is not allowed to have that freedom? If someone commits a crime, have they not paid their debt to society by serving their time in prison? Is the government in the business of predicting human behavior now? Why punish those who have been truly rehabilitated due to those who have not?

Why must someone be punished for the rest of their lives?
I believe it is just an excuse to strip more Americans from their freedom.
They are already trying to do it to the rest of us who have committed no crime!

Obviously there could be exceptions, for example if someone is a repeat offender of a crime involving a gun ect...The way laws are today, its not hard to get hit with a felony.

I agree with what idodson's says. But when you have a person who is a repeat offender particularity one that uses a gun as an offensive weapon, at what point do you say that they should no longer be trusted with a gun?

By the way yesterday I just sent out eight emails to some of our illustrious state representatives telling them that passing the anti-gun amendments they were thinking about would be considered a treasonous act!

[5150]

I agree with what idodson's says. But when you have a person who is a repeat offender particularity one that uses a gun as an offensive weapon, at what point do you say that they should no longer be trusted with a gun?

See the problem here is not removing this Repeat offenders constitutional rights to have a gun, but rather the failure (or problem) is the criminal justice system that has allowed such a repeat offender to be released back to the streets if the person is not rehabilitated or able to understand his actions.

The argument continues that if the offender has served his time from the previous crimes he has committed then he has paid his debt to society and should be allowed to have his guns back (even if he is a "repeat" offender) if he has served his time in each of his cases. If society has an issue with him being a repeat offender then longer jail sentences should be imposed but NEVER should his constitutional right be able to be removed or taken from him or anyone regardless of their actions or crimes.

Once you allow infringements for any reason such as repeat crimes then that slippery slope is a MF and you cant turn back. Then other cases or situations will be allowed under an infringement clause and the next thing you know is everyone will be subject to clauses on gun ownership essentially voiding the 2nd amendment.

[drak]

See the problem here is not removing this Repeat offenders constitutional rights to have a gun, but rather the failure (or problem) is the criminal justice system that has allowed such a repeat offender to be released back to the streets if the person is not rehabilitated or able to understand his actions.

The argument continues that if the offender has served his time from the previous crimes he has committed then he has paid his debt to society and should be allowed to have his guns back (even if he is a "repeat" offender) if he has served his time in each of his cases. If society has an issue with him being a repeat offender then longer jail sentences should be imposed but NEVER should his constitutional right be able to be removed or taken from him or anyone regardless of their actions or crimes.

Once you allow infringements for any reason such as repeat crimes then that slippery slope is a MF and you cant turn back. Then other cases or situations will be allowed under an infringement clause and the next thing you know is everyone will be subject to clauses on gun ownership essentially voiding the 2nd amendment.

I agree 100%.

[Mad Scientist]

See the problem here is not removing this Repeat offenders constitutional rights to have a gun, but rather the failure (or problem) is the criminal justice system that has allowed such a repeat offender to be released back to the streets if the person is not rehabilitated or able to understand his actions.

OK that makes sense.
But dealing with an individuals rights can be tricky. How long should a particular sentence be? How should it be determined? If after the sentence is served what if the individual is deemed not fit to be returned to society? Who would decide this and how might that be done? Might this be worse then saying ok you are allowed to go but you will not be allowed to have a gun?

[5150]

OK that makes sense.
But dealing with an individuals rights can be tricky. How long should a particular sentence be? How should it be determined? If after the sentence is served what if the individual is deemed not fit to be returned to society? Who would decide this and how might that be done? Might this be worse then saying ok you are allowed to go but you will not be allowed to have a gun?

Any sentence is up to a judge and once that sentence is set regardless how long or short then it needs to be respected and when the person is released then they still have their constitutional rights.

If they have served their sentence and a person is deemed not fit then they need not be released or sent to a mental hospital where they are confined. If they are not fit to be on the streets or fit to have a gun then they are not fit to be free... its just that simple.

NEVER should anyone's god given rights be removed or restricted if they are fit enough to be on the street.

as for how is such commitments done, well just read up on mental / psychiatry commitments in general. They are doing those now for sex offenders who after they serve their criminal jail sentence they are held and remanded to mental hospitals and not released due to the court finding them unfit to be on the street.

The Supreme Court has upheld these indefinite detentions as constitutional even though the person has not committed another crime. In essence its to prevent further crimes from occurring. So many people are in total agreement on this but again that slippery slope has been entered and now its a mess. The Ex-marine who posted on facebook his disdain with the government was taken in on a similar psychiatric hold they use on sex offenders and it wasn't until a huge uproar that he was finally released.

Never did they correct the fact they can legally do this, they just released this guy due to media pressure but others are in his same situation. This is the thing that scares me the most. I fear that one day that my anti government rants and pro gun positions for criminals will land me another one of these free psychiatric holds

then it will be your turn

[dutchdivco]

In MOST Jurisdictions,

I THINK all, in the U.S., but i haven't researched it, a convicted felon, who 'serves their sentence', and their parole, can petition the court for a restoration of their rights; they write a letter to the sentencing court, requesting restoration of their rights, and its usually 'pro-forma'; that is its normally granted. This is a 'complete' restoration; they can vote, own a gun, etc.
it is perhaps an agknowledgement that they hyave shown, by their actions, that they have been 're-habilitated', and are able to function in society.

And i agree on the 'slippery-slope' argument. NOW gun control activists are saying ban assault weapons. Then, their will be a jerry Lfner kind of attack, (where he used a pistol), and they will say 'pistols aren't for HUNTING, they are only made for killing people, lets ban them! Then, their will be an incident like the first 'rage' killing, the famed Texas Towers incident, in which the shooter used hunting rifles, and they will want to ban them.

Out of curiosity, I did a google search; 'school shootings' found 22 'incidents', (since the 'gun-free school zone' was enacted), plus numerous other incidents of guns being confiscated, that did NOT involve actual shootings.
Then, I googled 'Gun SHOW shootings. One would think, with 10's of thousands of people (perhaps 100's of thousands, nationwide, per year)attending guns shows, and MOST of them armed, that there would be LOTS!

I found 1 incident of a man, reportedly a dealer, accidentally shooting himself in the hand. And, tragically, one incident of an 8 y.o. boy shooting himself with an Uzi, while his father video taped it.If his father had been properly supervising, instead of video-taping,....). No instances of any nutjob going in to do an Aurora Colo. or Sandy Hook 'mass killing',....Gee, I wonder why?

The latest I hear is that Sen. Fienstien is advocating a National, Federal database of all gun owners; she's coming out and showing her 'true colors' and 'true agenda', and, like many fanatics, over-reaching.

Anyway, there already IS a mechanism, in the system, for those who have been convicted of a felony, to get their rights restored; serve your time, and keep 'clean' when you get out.

The 'criminal justice system' sucks, in so many ways. As 5150 pointed out, ANY felony conviction results in a loss of rights. In addition, prosecuters, mindful of conviction rates, will often plea-bargain Felonies down to misdemeanors, rather than go to trial. So, its entirely possible that you could have someone convicted of possesion of Pot, (say), who as a 'felon' can't own a gun, or vote, etc. And someone else who engaged in an armed robbery, but with questionable witnesses, etc. and so is 'plea-bargained' to some misdemeanor charge, who retains their rights.

There is no 'Justice' in our 'Justice' system; its only one of many 'systems' we have developed, which is broken.

They just reached a settelment with the Big banks, on mortgage,....well, fraud. I saw a detailed 'explanation'; basically, they started out reviewing EVERY case in which the banks repo'd a house, in an attempt to detirmine which cases the banks engaged in wrongdoing, and how much $ the homeowner was 'screwed' out of; at a certain point, they 'gave up', realising that was 'impractical', and so just negotiated an amount; so, if you commit a big enough crime, with enough victims, you can get away with a wrist-slap.

The whole system is corrupt, from top to bottom, and eventually I have to believe it will collapse of its own weight! I realy should be more like Rick, and stop watching TV; I'm sure it would do wonders for my Blood pressure!Jim

[5150]

Anyway, there already IS a mechanism, in the system, for those who have been convicted of a felony, to get their rights restored; serve your time, and keep 'clean' when you get out.

see you miss the fact that if you have to ask for permission to have your rights restored then they are not really rights, rather they are simply permission.

There should NEVER be any situation where any persons "rights' are revoked or infringed. again if they commit a crime or have mental issues then lock them up and restrict their access to society but NEVER strip them of their god given rights!

[rickoff]

see you miss the fact that if you have to ask for permission to have your rights restored then they are not really rights, rather they are simply permission.

There should NEVER be any situation where any persons "rights' are revoked or infringed. again if they commit a crime or have mental issues then lock them up and restrict their access to society but NEVER strip them of their god given rights!

I agree with you, in that the Founders recognized that we, as free men, all have God-given rights which shall not be taken away by other men. If we do wrong and are justly imprisoned for what we have done, we are no longer free, while imprisoned, to claim certain of those rights. When released after serving a full term of imprisonment, it should be considered that we are free men once again, and our rights should be fully restored.

If, on the other hand, an imposed sentence is shortened, and a prisoner is released on a probationary basis where the prisoner agrees to prove their worthiness for such release by abstaining from being involved in any activities not authorized, I would not consider that a deprivation of rights, but rather a common sense agreement.

[5150]

if, on the other hand, an imposed sentence is shortened, and a prisoner is released on a probationary basis where the prisoner agrees to prove their worthiness for such release by abstaining from being involved in any activities not authorized, I would not consider that a deprivation of rights, but rather a common sense agreement.

yes but are you saying that those activities which are restricted would include not owning or possessing a firearm for self protection? I mean I'm sure you would feel that the person not having a gun would be a common sense agreement unless that person was you and you felt a firearm was a self defense issue.

[rickoff]

Some time ago I said that we should not be surprised to see Barry attempt to run for a third, or even a continual term of office, and now I see that attempt has just been introduced in Congress by U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. as House joint Resolution 15, which would repeal the 22nd Amendment. That Amendment , passed by Congress in 1947, and ratified by the states in 1951, established a two-term limit for all US Presidents, and states, the following:

“No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.”

The reason why this became necessary is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was allowed to be reelected to a third and fourth term of office.

Previous to the Amendment, nearly all presidents honored the two term limit which George Washington had imposed upon himself as being reasonable and appropriate. If this current attempt is successful, then Barry could obviously remain a resident of the White House for several more terms, resulting in a virtual dictatorship. Being allowed a second term he was ineligible for was bad enough, but this move to permanently retain that office is outrageous. If this is allowed to pass then all sanity and reason flies right out the window. A previous attempt in 2009 (H.J.R. 5) to repeal the 22nd Amendment was unsuccessful, but I wouldn't count on that being the case this time around.

[dutchdivco]

Rick and 5150

If such a resolution, to repeal the 22nd amendment, needs to 'pass' the house, I very seriosly doubt it will pass.

On 'rights' of convicted felons; once someone (THEORETICALLY) after 'due process' has been convicted of a felony, and is incarcerated, they lose virtually ALL their rights, God given or not, WHILE they are incarcewrated, as I know you know, from personal experience.

They cannot even refuse to take medication, as the 'state' is obligated to provide them medical care.Certainly, they lose the right to keep and bear, and most would agree 'we' don't want prisoners 'armed' (not that they don't make 'shivs', etc.
The question then becomes when, and under what mechanism they have these rights restored, once they have 'served their debt to society'.

I seem to recall from my time behind bars, that you CAN elect to NOT be released on 'parole', and instead to serve out your 'full sentence', so the WHEN youare released, you are NOT 'on parole'; some (while I was 'in' elected to do this, after seeing how many who were released on parole returned within weeks, for some petty violation.

I would agree with Rick, 'early release' with parole is one thing, but serving your 'full sentence' SHOULD result in an 'automatic' restoration of rights. I'm not familiar enough with the mechanism of rights restoration of felons to know; its possible that IF someone served their full sentence and was releasewd without parole, whether they could immediately petition the cpourt for restoration of their rights.

Having gone thru the process, I don't have a major problem with having to 'ask'; if you have, by your previous behavior, exibited a clear disregard for the 'rules of society' i.e. committed and been convicted of a felony, you've shown a disregard for the rights of others, hence society takes away your freedom, along with your other rights, for a period of time. Its not unreasonable (to me) that their be some kind of 'process' for restoration of rights.

The 'Justice' system is far from perfect; there is LITTLE 'Justice' (in the 'Justice' system)for perpetrators, victims or society; its simply what we have.I suppose, like Democracy, it 'sucks', but beats the alternative? The Civil 'Justice' system is eaqually flawed, as I alluded to earlier.

Rob someone at gunpoint, of their hard earned $, and IF you are caught, you do the time. Rob 100's of thousands of people, of their houses, (thru clearly and blatantly illegal foreclosure practices), and you pay a small fine, as the 'cost of doing business', and even continue the illegal practices.

I learned an interesting mental 'device', sometime back; if you alter the name of any Gov't agency, to make the meaning the opposite, you will USUALLY be MUCH closer to the truth; The Dept of Social IN Security, The Dept of IN Justice, etc.

Rick quotes the founders, a lot; IF they were alive today, they would all be in Jail, under indefinite detention, as their radial actions and statements would CLEARLY be seen as a threat to our current Gov't.Jim